Stephanie Flanders on QEIII or whatever you want to call it

BobQ

Wookster wrote: »

It is not enough to do this without a functioning house market. This means repossessing those in default and allowing prices to find their market driven equilibrium.

That will help the economy? THe government should cut out the middle men who have failed this country (the banks) and loan money to the construction industry to build affordable housing for sale or rent. Then they will know that the economy is being stimulated. THey can do the same with some infrastructure products too.

ash28

Wookster wrote: »

Funny to hear Ed Balls talking about how austerity made the 1930s worse in Britain, when actually austerity combined with private sector investment brought the UK out of recession.

Interesting that construction was the main factor in rescuing the economy back then, that avenue now being closed due to high house prices, which are being kept high through a dysfunctional housing market and restrictive planning regulations.

For once Steph Flanders has written an article that contradicts the Labour spend song (though she'd never say it quite so explicitly).

Austerity did make things worse - a deflationary budget (cut benefits and raise taxes) reduced the purchasing power in the economy, that along with high interest rates meant unemployment shot up. The Navy mutinied when they were told they were getting 25% pay cuts - it made headline news around the world and international confidence in the UK plummeted.

The get out of jail card was having to leave the Gold Standard - the £ lost about 30% of it's value and interest rates fell (gov't no longer trying to prop up the £) and that fueled the house building boom - it wouldn't have happened if the country had been in the Gold Standard and implementing austerity measures at the same time - leaving the Gold Standard was ultimately what helped the economy grow - oh, and the cheap money that become available when interest rates fell.

The other was rearmament a bit later.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes, many of us have mentioned that a few thousand times, and you've disagreed. But now Steph says it, you agree?

Do make your mind up Graham....

When have I ever disagreed with building more houses? What I've disagreed with you on is knocking stuff down to rebuild it, simply for the sake of it.

I've also disagreed on building more houses backed on the basis of stimulus mortgages. Such as new buy, new deal, helping hand etc. This is simply building houses. Building 300,000 houses (remmeber its government spending, so state homes as it were) in a year would see prices slashed ans there would be no need for all this jiggery pockery.

What is being looked at here by stephanie is if we are going to introduce all this cash to the system (which it seems we are, with more to come), how could we better use it?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is simply building houses. Building 300,000 houses (remmeber its government spending, so state homes as it were) in a year would see prices slashed ans there would be no need for all this jiggery pockery.

It would also cost 50 billion or so in direct government expenditure......

And whilst it would only be a one year supply of current housing need, it would take far longer than a year to build that many.

So it's not going to happen that way.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It would also cost 50 billion or so in direct government expenditure......

And whilst it would only be a one year supply of current housing need, it would take far longer than a year to build that many.

So it's not going to happen that way.

And it would save a shed load in housing benefit.

Suddenly, Hamish is against house building....oh what a surprise. :doh:

From "I've been telling you all along" to "but but but....not state owned homes, but, it will cost".

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And it would save a shed load in housing benefit.

*sigh*

It wouldn't save a penny in housing benefit. Those houses still have to be paid for.

And with the average housing benefit claim at just £86 per week, you couldn't service the debt needed to build them, even at the low rates the government pays for debt.

Suddenly, Hamish is against house building....oh what a surprise. :doh:

From "I've been telling you all along" to "but but but....not state owned homes, but, it will cost".

Not really, I'm just pointing out how impossible it is.

But if you're really delusional enough to think a Tory government will build 300K new council houses, then carry on dreaming.....

The_J

It would take a state owned builder that was not for profit to achieve what you are asking for.

England will win the European Championships before that ever happens.

zappahey

DannyRadclif wrote: »

If supply/demand was all that mattered then go invest in a refugee camp in a 3rd world country. Plenty of demand and very little supply. So what if they have not enough money they will just get it from somewhere right, maybe they should work harder and stop being so lazy.

I know you're a precious metals nutter, and best ignored, but if you want to be taken seriously, you should change your sig to something that shows you understand supply and demand.

This one clearly shows that you don't.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

*sigh*

It wouldn't save a penny in housing benefit. Those houses still have to be paid for.

And with the average housing benefit claim at just £86 per week, you couldn't service the debt needed to build them, even at the low rates the government pays for debt.



Not really, I'm just pointing out how impossible it is.

But if you're really delusional enough to think a Tory government will build 300K new council houses, then carry on dreaming.....

So what exactly have you been telling us all along, if you now turn round and disagree with it?

Your first stated you have been stating this all along. Move a couple of posts along and you've turned round, basically saying it can't and won't be done. You've come unstuck somewhere.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Your first stated you have been stating this all along. Move a couple of posts along and you've turned round, basically saying it can't and won't be done. You've come unstuck somewhere.

Mr Muddle strikes again.

What Flanders said, that I agreed would be a good idea.....

The private sector built just shy of 300,000 houses

Ad here's what you said, that I noted would be so unlikely as to be verging on impossible....

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Building 300,000 houses (remmeber its government spending, so state homes as it were)

And here's why.....

-It would cost 50 billion or so in direct government expenditure. This isn't monetary policy, it's direct fiscal spending, and would increase the deficit this year by 50% or so.

-It wouldn't save a penny in housing benefit. Those houses still have to be paid for.

-With the average housing benefit claim at just £86 per week, you couldn't service the debt needed to build them, even at the low rates the government pays for debt.

-If you think a Tory government will build 300K new council houses, then you're delusional.